Re: Whole signs vs. Placidus
Well, here we get to an area that I am currently thinking about. I have several questions about this premise, a couple are:
1. Why do astrologers use the constellations in even, 30 degree segments when they are anything but that.
This is a question that keeps me up nights too. Best I can tell so far is that is one of the reasons we have signs of long and short ascension, and that a lot of the older timing techniques didn't rely so much on the 30* divisions. The best idea I have had on this is that it's more symmetrical, and when those Greeks were busy imposing logic on the omen based astrology of Babylonian origin, this made more sense to their idea of form and order.
2. The constellations aren't 'real' - they are an arrangement of stars accepted by western cultures but this arrangement isn't used in many other cultures. For example, the Chinese have quite different arrangements of the same stars.
I am wondering if in actual fact the constellations were named after the signs of the zodiac not the other way around. The signs of the zodiac are even, 30 degree segments derived from the Earth's movement around the Sun and starting when the Sun is at 0North00 declination on the equator,which is 0 Aries. Perhaps at a time when the western constellation of Aries was aligned to 0North00 declination this mixup occurred.
In all of my reading, I really do think that it was the constellations that came first. Why all of the constellations that touch the ecliptic were not included is still a mystery to me, and the only reason I can think of is that there was astrology (still omen based) and a calendar, and the calendar was set to the start of the year, back then in the spring, which corresponded with Aries. I have read several (I do wish I could lay hands to them now) articles about how there were initially issues surrounding the so called "Aries Point" that kept being moved due to precession, until finally it just got nailed in place and called good. I also think that the split, or divide, in the two western/Greek zodiacs (tropical and sidereal) happened when they were aligned, with some astrologers following the calendar based one, and other's staying with the star based zodiac. That they both work, though (notice how western tropical and western sidereal, as well as traditional Vedic/sidereal astrology give good results. Then, though I have not even tried to look at it, Chinese astrology works as well, and that has a whole nother system...something else must be working, don't you think?)
I wasn't aware that whole sign astrology used house cusps? what do they do, put the house cusps in the sign and call it an energy point but not the start of the house? If so, this is a new development since I studied the system.
Er, yes. The cusp of the house is the same degree in each sign as the ASC, so in this way it could be considered similar to equal houses, with the difference that sign=house. What is pretty cool about it is that yes, you get a "floating" MC/IC axis, meaning that they can be in a different house from the accustomed 10/4, and if they are in those 10/4 houses, you get two distinctly sensitive points there...or actually two distinctly sensitive points in the houses the axis occupies.
What then of the noticeable correlation of a planet in a house to the equivalent sign of the zodiac - this correlation is so exact that people can have a planet in a house at exactly the same House Equivalent Degree as a member of the family or a partner's planet in zodiac sign. I have detailed this at the bottom of this article using the Royal family as an example:
http://aliceportman.com/planet-sign-house/ If you don't use a quadrant house system how can you see this?
I'm going to confess that I skimmed, and didn't read the whole article (I apologize, but it's late here) but this is something that I have also been thinking about, and if you are inclined you can find my thoughts on this thread, about the differences between natural house rulers using Aries as the 1st house, and using the Thema Mundi to give us an older "natural" house ruler schema.
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52099
I suppose I have taken the lead from traditional astrologers who have loudly proclaimed that all the modern astrologers were using improper and incorrect astrology on a number of forums. Naturally I have answered them in kind.
This I totally understand. It's stinky (sorry, but I just can't think of a better word) when people have to beat each other up about what they use, that has proven to work, instead of trying to learn from each other, and from the broad history of astrology, including modern astrology. I irritate some of my more stalwart traditional friends by saying that the advances in aspect interpretation are really enlightening, and I have been guilty of a bit of Pluto bashing myself when a chart can clearly show the same thing in more detail with the 7 traditional planets...but how can we discredit what has been accomplished in the last century, and yet say that what was accomplished in say, the Medieval period has merit compared to the Hellenist tradition? The whole point is to talk, and to share, and to learn, not to "dis" everyone else.
Far from wishing to discourage further exploration, I have been a proponent of this all my astrological life, and was one of the original contributors to Project Hindsight via the astrological group to which I belonged. In my fascination with our craft I have studied a huge variety of astrology, including Vedic and Chinese astrology as well as the various forms of western astrology and have personally (re) discovered the duad chart as well as a number of other interesting factors.
What I object to is the continuous denigration of modern astrology, often from people who have little or no idea of its scope and depth. Whole sign (or zodiac sign) astrology is a specific system of astrology that many people like and is fashionable at the moment, but it doesn't encompass many of the methods of mapping that modern astrology offers and which give a very individual colour to that moment of time and place. To me it is a very simple form of astrology based on the zodiac sign rising at birth - and surely I am allowed to express my opinion on this matter, after all other people have also express their opinions. Why should expressing my opinion stop a discussion on this subject? I thought it was part of the discussion.
I have no objection to anyone who wishes open minded discussion. The key being open minded. As an original member of Project Hindsight, surely you can appreciate the before now unknown nuances of ancient astrology that are making their way back into the mainstream, and that have relevance today? Expressing an opinion is absolutely necessary in order to open even more minds. My only objection was to dismissive remarks that something is inaccurate, or not the correct house system to use to get accurate results. And, for what it's worth, I do appreciate your opinion, and the fact that, being from down under, you had to rework much of astrology for yourself. Have you ever noticed though, how often these expressing of opinions degenerate into sticking fingers in ears and then no one learns anything?
As an aside tsmall, when you are calculating the Lots using house cusps, e.g. Part of Death, do you use 0 degrees of the 8th sign from the Ascendant or the actual degree of the Ascendant transposed to that sign?
Alice
I think my good friend dr. farr just replied with an answer to this one, and thanks to he and other patient teachers I have found gave the same answer I would have.
For myself, I haven't gotten far enough in my studies to use lots that rely on the cusps of houses, and though plan to try out all of the seven hermetic lots, have only really worked to date with Fortune and Spirit. What can I say? I think I'm doing ok for a year in.